get_region_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions that the tool is 'rate limit 강건' (robust against rate limits), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it disclose any potential side effects or permission requirements. Given the lookup nature, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise, with a lead sentence summarizing the tool, followed by a usage hint and parameter documentation. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more succinct. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it (vs search_regions), how to use outputs, and parameter details. The output schema existing means describing return values is unnecessary, so no gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed meaning for all three parameters: cortar_no is '지역 코드 (읍면동 10자리)', real_estate_type includes examples like 'APT, OPST, VL 등', and trade_type lists A1, B1, B2 with their Korean equivalents. This significantly adds value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves region information and coordinates (지역 정보 + 좌표 조회) based on cortarNo. It specifies the outputs: exact coordinates, region name, and cluster count. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it is an alternative when search_regions is rate-limited.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: as an alternative when search_regions hits rate limits. It also explains how the output can be directly used in search_listings, providing integration guidance. No contradictory usage advice is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.